Support for Philip Bailhache’s new trans guidance
I want to share my support for Sir Philip Bailhache’s proposition to revoke the current schools guidance and replace it with the alternative guidance drafted by Stephanie Davies-Arai. In my view, the existing guidance is activist-led and encourages schools to treat children who question their gender outside of normal safeguarding processes. It not only allows social transition in schools but actively promotes it as the right response, even providing staff with tools to facilitate transitioning children. This sits uneasily with the scientific evidence. The Cass Review (2024) found that most gender-questioning children reconcile with their biological sex as they move through adolescence. It also highlighted that many of these children are among the most vulnerable, often with co-existing conditions such as autism or ADHD, alongside mental health struggles or difficult home situations. As Dr Cass noted, social transition is “an active intervention” with potential long-term consequences, something that falls well outside the role and expertise of schools. Childhood is a time for exploration and identity development. Feelings and self-perception can change over time. Encouraging children to socially transition risks setting them on a fixed path that may be hard to step back from later. Schools should be focused on safeguarding and support, not facilitating identity transitions. I’m also concerned about the wider safeguarding implications. Policies that allow gender-questioning pupils to be treated as the opposite sex, including access to toilets, changing rooms, and residential spaces, may happen without the knowledge or consent of other pupils or parents. That raises legitimate privacy and safety concerns, particularly for girls, and seems at odds with wider commitments to tackling violence against women and girls. For these reasons, I believe the current guidance should be revoked and replaced with guidance that prioritises safeguarding, evidence-based practice, and the wellbeing of all children. I’d be interested to hear from members on what their views are and how they are going to handle this issue going forward.
Comments (3)
Log in to join the discussion
I disagree utterly. The existing guidance is absolutely the opposite of activist led. It is evidence based. That means it has been carefully aggregated from professional observations, theory and evidence based research. The Cass review was conducted under a conservative Government, who promoted Cass to Baroness as they left office. Stephanie Davies-Arai is an activist. The organistion she represents are activists. Worse than that, they have been formed as an anti-trans organisation with a name that sounds contrary to what the intentions of the organisation are. This is like the 'Women's rights network' who have formed as an anti-transgender organisation but hide this behind what sounds like an entirely different cause. This is disgraceful and shows a lack of trust and exhibits a type of guile that it is entirely typical of the misinformed and emotive reactionary led opinion based suggestions. Wider safeguarding issues are the province of the professionals involved... continued.
The implication that privacy and safety concerns are raised, and the association with violence against women and girls is utterly incorrect. Those children that are carefully supported and evaluated in their desire to eventually transition are a tiny minority, and are, to the best of my reasonably informed knowledge, not likely to ever inspire any type of violent act. Evidence based practice is already conducted. But in your assumptions, and your following of individuals like Davies-Arai, who are evangelical in their anti transgendered views, you will be selecting 'evidence' that is less than logically formed in its conclusions. And since we are on the discussion of evidence based opinions, may I ask, how many people do you actually know who have transitioned or are intending to transition? And just to point this out, no physically adjusting medications are currently prescribed to those wanting to transition until they reach 18 years old.
Furthermore, why did you select the label of 'Good News' when creating your post? Should it not have been 'Concern'? Or is it typical that all anti transgendered individuals misrepresent their interactions?